zaaaAP Lit SuperBlog

Microsoft Word

Last night while I was finishing my math homework, feeding my dog, and wondering when my college applications are due when I took a break and sat down at the computer. I looked over a college application essay and decided that one of my sentences did not sound right. It was one word, something like improve or progress, which halted the flow of my sentence. My Microsoft word has a handy little synonym button. I used it on this word. I wish I could remember the exact word. Nevertheless, the synonyms were civilize and humanize. I immediately thought of heart of darkness and Achebe. My previous post about Achebe’s argument was to argue his entire analysis but now I had seen his theories in reality. Could the thesaurus feeding my word documents actually say that a synonym for improve – I cannot believe I forgot the word – was civilize? I was shocked. This revelation illuminated the relations between western cultures and Africa in a new, blinding light. I not find value in Achebe’s last few paragraphs. Unfortunately, the rest of his argument I still disagree with.

HOD Rules, Imperialism Drools

Achebe is right when he says that HOD is a great example of the racism and degrading view or Africa in society. He talked about how many times we use Africa as our foil. It's almost there to make us feel better about our faults, since we perceive it as so underdeveloped. However, I believe that Achebe takes it too far when he says that HOD can't be considered a great work of literature because of this racism. He said it was inaccurate because of prejudice. I strongly disagree with this. It's important to read the novel because it lets society see how racism is still a major problem. Even if we disagree with people's opinions, it's important that we hear them. That way we are aware of the issues that need to be solved. The truth can be dark, but it still needs to be said.

Poetry Doesn't Have to Suck

Someone blogged earlier about how poetry basically sucks and while it might be helpful to be capable of understanding it, most poetry we read in class is unoriginal. I'm not going to lie, poetry class in high school does suck. For some reason, teachers give us the worse works to read. It almost like they want us to hate poetry.

I feel maybe it's they don't want us to realize the power of words. Poetry has no rules. If our generation accepted poetry and the freedom it allowed there might be a social revolution. We might start coming up with our own ideas. I'm not really sure how sarcastic and cynical I mean to be here but basically the ideologies of poetry challenges present authoritative figure who like the status quo. The passion and feelings found in poetry, if transferred to teenage life, instead of the normal indifference, would be world changing. Like if we cared, we might actually vote haha.

I dare the teachers to inspire us with words. I dare them to make us care.

The Truth is Black

Throughout the novel, HOD, there is the interesting concept of light versus darkness. This is no where near an original interpretation of the two colors as this motif is commonly used in the literary world as a visual representation of good and evil. What I found fascinating however is the way Conrad twisted the representation a bit further than normal. The average person would assume that good and evil can also stand for truth and deceit, respectively, or in this novel, truth and naivety.

Conrad is interestingly in that he switches these connections and associates the naivety with light and the truth with darkness. I found this confusing because I have never seen this association before but it is clear in the novel when the intended is described as luminescent and at the end of the story when the truth is out, the sky has become darker than ever. Why is Conrad so bent on perceiving the world as a dark place? He is supposed to be encouraging honesty with this portrayal or scaring us into blissful ignorance? Or is this representation a challenge those who stand by moral and see if they are willing to face the darkness and embrace brute truth whether or not it is good?

Put Your Hands Up

While Heart of Darkness isn't the longest book I've ever read, it still has an intense plot that can make your head spin. The story is quite fascinating but I've been thinking, if you were sitting on that boat, listening to Marlow, wouldn't you have been dying to say something during the course of the story. There are soooooo many places were the racist undertones become blatant and especially at the end when Marlow admits to his own corruption by lying that I feel at least one person should have stood and shouted something at him! Response to the controversial novel is a given but why is all the debate outside the book? It's unrealistic to think that the story ended in silence. Don't you think that someone should have at least raised their hand to ask a question or two when it was over? If you had been there, what would you have said to Marlow?

This Is The Way The World Ends...

I don't know if anyone else read this but, in our Heart of Darkness packet there is a poem called Hollow Men by T.S. Elliot. I thought it related very nicely to a lot of themes in Heart of Darkness and in fact directly referenced the book at several points. The poem did a great job generalizing one of the possible interpretations of Heart of Darkness in to a greater more Apocalyptic importance. In fact, the poem itself seems to be the exact Whited Sepulcher reading of Heart of Darkness, extended to examine the consequences of a world filled with these "Hollow Men", a term that Eliot coins to describe men like Kurtz, who, inside, are full of only loose dirt. Their actions are blind, groping and violent. Their existence is the true nature of men and that the end of the world is not only inevitable but it has already begun. The poem reflects this as it comes to a halting stop, breaking down all form and finally sobbing the last lines.

"For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."

I, by the way, don't agree with this assessment. I think its overly pessimistic.

You Can't Handle the Truth!

During one of the motif presentations this week, Mr. Heidkamp led us to the conclusion that most characters in Heart of Darkness could not face the truth.  This often served as an explanation for their behaviors or how they carried out their lives in Africa.  This statement really got me thinking.  What is it, exactly, that the characters can't handle?  What is this 'truth' that none of them seemed to be able to face?  Kurtz went insane and gave into his inhibitions and corruption.  Why?  What specifically couldn't he face?  Was it that he was ashamed of what he was doing?  Was he driven to madness by the futility of it all?  What is the crucial element in this novel that the characters hide from or ignore?

A Chink in Achebe's Armour

When we discussed Achebe's article in class one of the main topics was the Europe was big on making Africa look bad, so Europe could remain on it's high pedastal.  He argued that this was very apparent in The Heart of Darkness.  But to me, there can be arguments made against that.  One theme that I saw in the book was the hypocrisy of imperialism, as seen in the lack of trade made by Kurtz.  The result of this imperialism (chaos, madness, etc.) only reflected poorly for Europe, in turn making them look poorly.n 

Preaching Poetry... I've Heard It Already!

So as we all know, we had to read those...hmmm, how to be diplomatic... less than exciting chapters in the poetry booklet. I don't know how it might be for other people, but in my experience, everytime I start a poetry unit in a class, I have to read some sort of essay or article preaching the same exact things. I even had to read something like that on the ACT last Saturday.

I was dissapointed to find the Perrine chapters were corny, overstated, and old news. I've heard that poetry is important, useful, and significant. The phrases Perrine used were very clichéd. For example, on page 5, "Reading a poem is like getting on bard a rhythmical roller coaster." Really? I've never heard that before.

However, I did find the list about how to read a poem useful, if not annoying with some certain phrases. I might sound whiney, but I am sick of reading the same thing every poetry unit. Isn't poetry suppose to be original? Then why do authors feel the need to push poetry with unoriginality?

Piggyback

So this post began as a comment on Greg's post "Too Many Motifs", but I soon realized it was ridiculously long to be a mere comment.  I felt similarly to many of you when reading Heart of Darkness and having to battle off feelings of overwhelmingness (I know that is most likely not a word).  Yes Greg, I did feel like I missed some of the significance of the other motifs in search of the meaning behind my own.  At the same time, I felt like all the motifs I came across were very similar.  It was sometimes hard for me to discern my motif from others'.  Even in the class presentations, many of our quotes overlapped.  A good example is the "sketch in oils." (36)  This painting was significant with regard to light/dark, black/white, and blindness/sight.  Throughout my reading, I felt like all these motifs were very similar and perhaps all connected.  After the class presentations I was a little clearer on the difference between all of them.  But my question is whether it is necessary to split up these motifs?  I feel like it it enough to analyze light/dark in the same manner we analyze black/white.  Both of these are strongly connected to the motif of blindness and sight.

No Solution In Evolution: Is Humankind Doomed?

I was trying to find a time in history where it seemed consistently possible that people might be essentially good, and I was at somewhat of a loss. Every age has been filled with or capped off by some immense conflict or struggle, nearly every civilization has experienced some sort of oppression or injustice, greed and self interest have been motivating factors, and even after condemning the majority of this we are far from any kind of stability today.  Conrad's novel aside, it seems more and more likely to me that man is basically evil. Despite what Europeans might say, qualities like the endless desire for power and dominance seem as just primal as the behavior of the "savages", at times even more so. Heart of Darkness is a dark book, but it strikes a chord with us because we can relate it to so much we know about contemporary evils, along with things we learn in history.

Drawing from Heart of Darkness, what can be found to contradict the theory that humans are intrinsically bad? Drawing from current events?

What Is Your Darkness?

Is darkness a universal or indivisual concept? As the HOD is told through the perspective of Marlow, the reader is only aware of the darkness that is present in his world. The reader is warned of Marlow's seemingly pointless stories and is reminded of the fact that dreams and experiences cannot be described accurately by first the outer narrator and then Marlow himself. The journey into the HOD is a journey of self knowledge. Therefore, the darkeness that surrounds Marlow is an a part of HIS journey, HIS self-discovery. Marlow's final acknowledgement of the darkness all around him may be Conrad's interpretation of human nature, but it human nature as discovered through an individual experience.

What is your darkness?

Yellow Buddha Boy!

At the beginning and end of Heart Of Darkness, the narrator describes Marlow as looking like a meditating Buddha. At the beginning on the River Thames, Marlow is shown, "Cross-legged right aft, leaning against the mizzenmast. He had sunken cheeks, a yellow complexion, a straight back, an ascetic aspect , and, with his arms dropped, the palms of hands outwards, resembled an idol" (Conrad, 4). I inferred after reading this that this idol with a yellow complexion was Buddha. This shows some of Conrad's racism because Buddha is Asian, he is described being yellow. This inference to Marlow being Buddha is backed up by the description of Marlow at the end of the novel. The narrator comments,"Marlow ceased, and sat apart, indistinct and silent, in the pose of a meditating Buddha" (Conrad, 117). It is strange that the narrator describes Marlow as a Buddha because the book is all about Africa, not Asia. This description only adds more confusion to the already complex novel. Why do you think Marlow is described this way?

The Catalyst

Many of those that adventure into the Congo never pull through without their personality's changing. Not one of those characters that emerged from the Congo, survived unscathed, or transformed into something better. Where do they all go wrong? What in the Congo instills or catalyzes the change from decent human being to profit seeking, mass murdering human hunter? Could it be the solidarity the jungle has upon the characters inner self? Is the thing that actually changes these people the imperialism they are told to enforce upon the Congo?
These questions are posed throughout the book but to me they are never truly answered. To each character his own interpretation of the Congo was taken, from Marlow's Aunt's unrealistic views of the events taking place, to Kurtz's story about seeing "the horror". What changes these caring men's soles into something so utterly different even their closest friends and family would not be able to distinguish them?

She Was Savage and Superb

A favorite topic this time around seems to be racism, more specifically the dehumanization of native Africans and its significance in both Heart of Darkness and modern times. Obviously, Conrad tends to portray Europeans as superior. One of you said that comparisons are inevitable, and that Europeans can't be blamed for making them.

I would have to say that though certain comparisons are helpful in the-tooting-of-the-own-horn, in the context of imperialism they are often based in willful ignorance and molded to European's preconceptions about its stance in the world. It is evident even in parts of the maybe-racist Heart of Darkness that many "savage" societies in fact possess a great degree of complexity, such as in Conrad's description of the savage woman on pages 91 and 92. This was definitely the case in many Native American tribes, and from what I've learned, an ongoing theme in Africa too. Regardless, I find it interesting how a failure to understand such complexity on the part of the Europeans results in the conclusion that such ways of life are backwards.

Can I Cram Self-Discovery?

How can one be expected to learn of the darkness around one when there are so many tasks to be done? Prioritizing is one thing, but there is no chance of self-discovery if I am also supposed to be discovering calculus, english, anatomy.. etc. COLLEGE. There is that too. What I think is that Marlow had it easy. England did not assign him physics homework to do on his journey through the Congo.

Maybe the English had the right idea- concern yourself with one subject and illuminate that and only that. Yes, you may be perceived as ignorant at first, but you will be content with your state of being as you will know nothing else. Eventually, a Conrad wouldn't even be there to point out your ignorance and mock you for it because he too would be concerned with finding himself and nothing else. It is sad, but easy.

I suppose my question then is: How can one journey into oneself and realize the darkness around them if one must first concern themselves with extraneous duties?

Racism Still Exists... Obviously

I personally felt that Achebe had a valid point. I believe that cultural attitudes toward Africa have changed very little and we still treat Africa as our foil. We constantly have to reassure ourselves of our moral superiority. It's true that, at the time, Conrad might not have been a racist. But now, it is time for our attitudes to change. Reading works of literature like this could help to start the conversation, but they could also just reflect our prejudices back at us. How do you respond to this? I'm interested in asking the question of how we view Africa. Achebe brings up an important point that needs to be addressed: do we accept Africans as our cultural and moral equals?

I do not believe we do.

Conrad's unintentional racism

As I have been reading the other posts on this blog, I have noticed a lot of people saying they did not at first see the racism present in Heart of Darkness until they read Achebe's argument. I always saw Conrad's novel as racist but I understand the point of view of some of those who overlooked it. This is because Conrad is not trying to be racist. In my opinion, his anti-imperialism themes are progressive for his time, especially how he emphasizes the hypocrisy of colonization when others gave their full-fledged support to "civilizing" the natives of foreign countries. Conrad does not differ from the others however, when it comes to the belief of blacks being inferior to whites. Because he does not dispute this, he doesn't give arguments to prove it, and the main theme of the novel is devoted more towards other subjects such as imperialism. Because Conrad does not stress the racism and writes it more matter-of-factly, I can see how these might be overlooked at first.

Defend Conrad

After the discussion in class today, in some extend, I can agree with Achebe's stance. But I also think one should not to look at a piece of literature from a point of view that is different from author's original intention, and criticize the author for it. A book should never be criticized for what other than it's intended idea. It's very hard, if not impossible, to find a perfect piece of work that is complete flawless in terms of social and political meaning or stance. Many times, when an author is focus on one stance, especially when he/she is trying to reveal a type of underlying social problem, they try to amplify their point by oversimplify some of the fact. I think this is what Conrad does in Heart of Darkness, almost all his arguments are to demonstrate the hypocrisy and the potential of evil of European Imperialism. Therefore many of the examples he uses is solely for the sake of his argument. On the other hand those examples may contain other meaning in there or can be interpreted differently, but it's not the intention of Conrad, thus not the meaning of the book. It's foolish to look at the meaning of great literature by analyze it's parts and put them back together afterward, because the whole is always greater than it's parts.   

Achebe: Putting Heart of Darkness on the shelf

After Achebe established that the work was inherently racist he suggested that the book be put on the shelf. He concluded that future generations should disregard Heart of Darkness and not dwell on it. Personally, I disagree, I think that, disregarding authorial intent, the book has multiple other valuable interpretations. Perhaps it should simply be handled with more care. What do you think?

Hmm...What to write about

So, I am sitting here contemplating what to write about on my Heart of Darkness essay and I thought of a great idea. I am going to run this idea by you guys and I want to know what you think.
I think that Heart of Darkness is a love story. Kurtz is the love of Marlow's life and Marlow sees Kurtz as the love of his life. He cannot obtain Kurtz but thats what makes Kurtz so much more entrancing. I think I could write an essay like this by using examples, like when Marlow saw Kurtz's mistress he was a little jealous. There was a tone in that part of the story that gave the reader the idea that Marlow was jealous that Kurtz was with someone else. He was bitter that Kurtz was not in love with wanting to see Marlow. This embodies a human aspect so therefore would answer question one in section A.
Good idea or not?

More Of Rant Than An Argument

Chinua Achebe started off his argument very well. He had interesting points, and supported them with many quotes from the book. But suddenly his argument changed from talking about how "Western psychology sets Africa up as a foil to Europe" to how "Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist". I felt like this ruined his whole argument.
It was obvious that the writing had racist remarks like calling the natives "savages" or describing them like animals, but I thought this was done intentionally. He wanted to make Marlow a realistic character, and that was the mind set he Conrad created for him. Just because a character is acts racist does not mean the author is. I figured it was like how Mark Twain made many of his characters racist to criticize racism.
If Achebe had stuck with his original idea, the essay would have been very good. But that second statement turned the whole thing into more of a rant than anything else.

Achabe and Post-Colonialism

In Class on Thursday, we talked about how Achabe's criticism helped launch the new style of criticism called post-colonialism. As many of you know post-colonialism is the intellectual perspective of looking at both artwork before the colonization as well as the life of those who are coloinized.

Although I agree Achabe's work lacked balance, I believe sometimes a work like Achabe's can inspire other works of better value. By his harsh cirticism, Achabe can be saying don't just criticze the works that belittle the Africans, look at the works that suposdely empower them. Look for Conrad's comparisons, he still calls them "savages" and uses dialect like "Mistah Krutza dead". Although Achabe takes his argument too far, I do appulad his tenacity and audcatiy for stating something so unpopular and help launch the postcolinalist movement.

Be Reasonable

Hey Super Blog Readers,

I know like many of you I have been in the process of sending out countless applications. I the feeling that applying for schools means for then just filling in a application.

Despite what anyone tells you your college does have Like many of you I agree that this process, has not been perfected. I believe in the elimination of the ACT because with study classes and other entities, it is no longer a true gauge of intelligence. I also believe a school that does not interview a student, is risking the student is nothing more then a robot with a pen and will contribute nothing to the school.

Then again... my "reforms" almost all benefit my cause. I always interview well, and my ACT score is not a 36. So this is what I think happens. When people ask to "reform" the application process, sometimes, they mix-up good reforms with what would benefit themself. I don't think this is a problem because the application is very important and I know I lose my rational to it many times.

When schools recieve 19,000 applications for 2,000 opening they do need something the ACT or a GPA to cut down the actual contenders. Is this is a good system? No. Is it a nesscary system? What do you think?   

Was Achebe Fair?

So I can't really get past the Chinua Achebe essay that we read this week and his explicit mention of Conrad as a racist.  I thought it was a really good essay with a lot of good points, and it was supported well, but I'm stuck on the idea of if it was fair to be so critical of Conrad's racist views.  He was born in the 1850s wasn't he? It's kind of a given that he would be racist, considering most people who weren't were known for it.  Also, Achebe retorts to several arguments like mine and says that Conrad could have done something different in Heart of Darkness, but he never really goes into detail of what that could be....I agree with Achebe that Conrad definitely has a negative view of the Africans, don't get me wrong, but I don't really think it was as on purpose as Achebe believes it was.

What Exactly is a Motif?

Alright, I know that literature can be very abstract, and I know that I am a very literal person, but by no stretch of the imagination do I see a motif of a whited sepulcher in Heart of Darkness. It shows up twice according to Brady's article, both times referring to Brussels. The other examples are references to the same pattern, but that is after careful analysis and they don't even refer to a tomb! So can someone tell me exactly what a motif is? Obviously I've got it all wrong. Can it be a pattern of hidden meanings?

I think that it was not logical to name the motif or pattern or whatever it is a "whited sepulchre." No, to me it should have been given the title of "death masked by deception." It's catchy and consice enough, and it doesn't mislead readers like me to think that this tomb is repeated over and over again in the book.

Obiously, I need enlightenment. (Like Marlow the Buddha!) Someone please explain for me!

Another Achebe Post

I agree with Achebe that Conrad gives racist descriptions of Africans but I completely understand why Conrad is this way. First of all you have to understand that this book was written in 1902 towards a Western audience. Therefore Conrad wrote this novel just like most authors would've. I feel that Conrad would've been criticized  if he didn't stress the Africans being uncivilized back in the day when people held very prejudice views of Western Superiority. I think that Conrad was over descriptively racist because that is just his style. He loves to explain every little detail to the reader. My final question comes from a point Chris Rock made in his latest Stand up. When you see racism, especially when it's written over a hundred years ago, does it surprise you? Should it be a major topic of discussion?

Whoa man, take it easy...

Scathing.  That's the best summary I can give of Chinua Achebe's assault on Joseph Conrad, and the surviving racism of Westerners.  Achebe does not attempt to hide his passions or assaults on others.  I get the anger about racism.  It's a good thing to be angry about.  What I'm a little uncomfortable with is Achebe's condemning of Conrad himself.  I can understand condemning the work of Conrad, but Achebe made quite personal attacks on Conrad himself.  I am not trying to justify all that Conrad has written or done.  Indeed I see the validity in much of what Achebe wrote.  But I feel it is slightly unfair to judge Conrad so harshly when there is no possibility for validation from him.  Was Conrad intentionally racist in Heart of Darkness? He's dead, so we will never really know.  But we can make inferences, which is what Achebe has done.  The only thing I can inference is that Conrad was probably a product of his time.  Was he racist?  Most likely.  Did he intentionally perpetuate racist stereotypes to keep the black man inferior to the white man? You tell me... 

Marlow's Interaction with Kurtz's Intended

So I have been bothered by a certain part in the book that seemed to contradict what was said in pervious passages, and that is why Marlow lied to Kurtz's intended when speaking of Kurtz's last words.  In an earlier part of the book, Marlow talks about truth, saying, "...but truth- truth stripped of its cloak of time.  Let the fool gape and shudder- the man knows, and can look on without a wink...He must meet that truth- with his own inborn strength"(54).  Marlow seems to feel very strongly about the importance of being truthful, especially to oneself.  And in the end of the book, Marlow is confronted with Kurtz's Intended, and when asked to repeat the last words Kurtz says, he thinks to himself, "'I was on the point of crying at her, 'Don't you hear them?'...The horror, The horror!"'(116). Yet Marlow lies to Kurtz's intended by saying, “‘The last word he pronounced was- you name'"(116). 

Thinking about this why Marlow contradicted himself in 2 important passages, I came up 2 reasons.

First, I think that Marlow may have been very heavily attached to Kurtz, thus he did not want to share the one thing he had left that could be only between him and Kurtz.  He was jealous of hearing about how close Kurtz and his intended were, and decided that he wanted to keep the one thing that kept their relationship special.  Marlow realizes this when he says, "I saw her and him in the same instant of time... Do you understand? I saw them together- I heard them together"(112). Marlow realizes in this moment that Kurtz shared an even more special bond with someone else- and he felt he needed to hang on to the only bit of important information only he know- only he shared with Kurtz.

Second, I believe that when Marlow was talking about being truthful, he did not mean that in a general sense, but more specifically pertaining to being truthful to ones self.  Marlow exclaims that men,”must meet that truth with his own true stuff"(54), meaning men should "that truth" with the fact that he is truthful to himself.  Thus, Marlow does not have to lie about anything to others, but as long as he is truthful to himself, as he feels his is being because he is saving the only reminisce of his and Kurtz's relationship, then it is ok to lie.  So that is what I think, any feedback?

Achebe and Brady

I honestly thought that both Achebe and Brady's articles had many valid points and I can see both of their views of what the theme of Heart od Darkness is.  However I think Brady's theme was derived mostly from textual support where Achebe's theme was derived from Conrard's biography, the society during the time Heart of Darkness was written, and some textual support.  I think the what  makes Brady's theme seem to be more solid and correct is that he mainly took examples from the text and related it to his theme.  I'm not saying Achebe didn't do that, but Achebe seemed more focused on proving Conrad himself, was a racist which could be debated since he didn't know the man and only used support from something Conrad had written when he was young.  I think Achebe was doing a good job with defending his theme until he got too personal.  Does anyone think that if Achebe had stuck with using mainly examples from the text that his arguement would've been stronger?  Or do you think he used enough? I just want to know why some people didn't like his article.  I  personally think both articles proved their point.

Also, this is off topic, but are we allowed to post on other blogs on the typepad site?